Baija Jayan, v. the State of Kerala, Represented by Secretary to Government

Kerala HC2 Apr 2025WP(C)/1700/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

paddy land / wetland conversion Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet land Act 2008; Form 5 application; RDO (Revenue Divisional Officer) Thrissur; Ext.P5 rejection order dated 03-06-2022; total lack of application of mind; garden land contention unconsidered; cryptic order; KSREC report not obtained or referred; set aside Ext.P5; fresh consideration after obtaining KSREC report; remit required KSREC fee; Baija Jayan; WP(C) 1700/2023; Kerala High Court Ernakulam 2025; Harisankar V. Menon.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with Ext.P5 set aside; 2nd respondent (RDO) directed to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's application afresh after obtaining the KSREC report, with the petitioner to remit the required fee for obtaining that report. ¶¶29

Baija Jayan, Vs the State of Kerala, Represented by Secretary to Government — Kerala HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether Ext.P5, by which the 2nd respondent (RDO) rejected the petitioner's application for conversion of the property's status under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet land Act, 2008, suffers from total lack of application of mind and warrants being set aside. +1 more

¶¶28

Court's answer

Ext.P5 evidences a total lack of application of mind by the RDO: the various contentions regarding the nature of the property (stated to be garden land) were not considered, so Ext.P5 can only be regarded as a cryptic order.

¶¶28

Ratio / Principle

The RDO neither obtained nor referred to the report from the KSREC in issuing Ext.P5.

¶¶28

Key takeaways

In the result, the Court held that Ext.P5 requires to be set aside and disposed of the writ petition by setting aside Ext.P5.ratio¶¶29
The 2nd respondent (RDO) is directed to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's application afresh after obtaining the report from the KSREC.ratio¶¶33
The petitioner is to remit the required fee for obtaining the report from the KSREC.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Kerala HC (Ernakulam) | Harisankar V. Menon, J. (single judge) | WP(C) No. 1700 of 2023 | Baija Jayan v. State of Kerala & Others | decided 02-04-2025. Petitioner sought conversion of his property's status under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet land Act, 2008; the Revenue Divisional Officer (2nd respondent) rejected the application vide Ext.P5 (order dated 03-06-2022). Judging Ext.P5 to show a total lack of application of mind - the contentions that the property is garden land were not considered, rendering it a cryptic order, and the RDO had neither obtained nor referred to the KSREC report - the Court set Ext.P5 aside, disposed of the writ petition, and directed the RDO to reconsider the application afresh after obtaining the KSREC report, the petitioner being required to remit the requisite fee for the report. No precedent cited; no monetary quantum stated beyond the unspecified KSREC fee obligation.

¶1

2025:KER:28357

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON

¶5

WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 12TH CHAITHRA, 1947

¶6

WP(C) NO. 1700 OF 2023

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

BAIJA JAYAN,
AGED 54 YEARS

¶9

W/O.JAYAN, MULLANKUZHY HOUSE, GJ ROAD, CHIYYARAM P.O.,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680026

¶10

BY ADV

¶11

 J.G.SYAMNATH

¶12

RESPONDENTS:

¶13

1THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001

¶14

2THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680003

¶15

3THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
KOORKANCHERRY, THRISSUR, PIN - 680007

¶16

4THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHI BHAVAN,KOORKANCHERRY,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680007

¶17

OTHER PRESENT:

¶18

SRI T JAYAN GP

¶19

WP(C)No.1700 of 2023

¶20

¶21

2025:KER:28357

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
02.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

WP(C)No.1700 of 2023

¶24

¶25

2025:KER:28357

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

The petitioner has approached the 2 nd respondent herein by f i ling an application seeking conversion of the status of the property under the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet land Act, 2008. As per Ext.P5, the 2 nd respondent herein has rejected the application f i led as above. It is in such circumstances that the captioned writ petition is f i led by the petitioner herein.

¶28

2 . A perusal of Ext.P5 would show a total lack of application of mind at the hands of the RDO. The various contentions raised with reference to the nature of the property in question, which is stated to be garden land, are not seen considered while issuing Ext.P5. Hence, that can only be considered as a cryptic order. Furthermore, the RDO has not obtained or referred to the report from the KSREC.

¶29

3 . In the result, I am of the opinion that the order at Ext.P5 requires to be set aside. Resultantly, this writ petition will stand disposed of, setting aside Ext.P5 and directing the 2 nd

¶30

WP(C)No.1700 of 2023

¶31

¶32

2025:KER:28357

¶33

respondent herein to consider and pass orders on the application f i led by the petitioner afresh after obtaining the report from the KSREC in the matter.

¶34

Needless to say, the petitioner is to remit the required

¶35

fee for obtaining the report from the KSREC as above.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

HARISANKAR V. MENON
JUDGE

¶38

HKH/02.04.2025

¶39

WP(C)No.1700 of 2023

¶40

¶41

2025:KER:28357

¶42

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1700/2023

¶43

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶44

EXHIBIT-P1A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED
NO.5070/2014 OF THRISSUR SRO DATED 31-
10-2014

¶45

EXHIBIT-P2A TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX PAID
RECEIPT DATED 09-11-2022

¶46

EXHIBIT-P3A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE
BASIC TAX REGISTER

¶47

EXHIBIT-P4A TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 25-
01-2022

¶48

EXHIBIT-P5A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 03-06-
2022 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT

Baija Jayan, v. the State of Kerala, Represented by Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baija Jayan, v. the State of Kerala, Represented by Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sarvabhagya Nidhi Limited Vs Union of India

Vismaya Nidhi Limited Vs Union of India

Motomi Bharat K Nidhi Limited Vs Union of India

Husna Vs Revenue Divisional Officer, Kozhikode

Jasmine S Vs the Tahsildar

State of Kerala Represented by Secretary to Government Vs P.N.Ravindranath